In this section we wish to share critical ideas with sense
of humor about cognitive neuropsychology research. We like RT
methodology but we are also conscious of the limits. We respect
the reviewing process of the international journals but it can
be updated and better alternatives can be searched and offered…
Here you can see a tentative list. From time
to time (every month) we will develop some of these ideas.
- For example about the reviewing process of a ms: speed
of the process, the referees’ crazy comments (inconsistent
or no-useful comments, bad understanding of the article, unclear
- Sometimes the reviewers accept a ms with a good methodology
about nothing or a replication, but ideas are rejected. Sometimes
creativity is killed after the reviewing process. The unbalanced
contrast of hypothesis between idea and data.
- I would like to edit a journal with rejected articles
(to evaluate their quality) and their revisors´ comments
(to evaluate their quality).
- About research: Some of the Doctors that I know love ideas,
but only their own ideas and hate others ideas. They live
in a world of friends (persons who share my ideas) and enemies.
They believe in some ideas, theories or analysis like a monk
or a soldier with exclusiveness. But we like to talk or read
persons with different ideas and to share and shift ideas
without vanity and prejudice (about concepts, theories, hypothesis,
- About the limits of RT methodology :
- The confusion between ideas (hypothesis and theories)
in one side and tasks and mental image technology in
the other side.
- Are RT tasks non-useful for clinic neuropsychology?
Or for the study of P-consciousness? Or for applied cognitive
- About the cognitive psychology of attention: I see the
same questions for ever (following Allport´s arguments:
Are they wrong questions?): Stimulus selection related
or response selection related -late or early-, automatic or
controlled processing…. Are RT tasks useful to build up
a theory about information processing?